Full Chapter Case Studies in Society Religion and Bioethics Sana Loue PDF

Case Studies in Society Religion and
Bioethics Sana Loue

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/case-studies-in-society-religion-and-bioethics-sana-lo
ue/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Engaging Bioethics An Introduction With Case Studies

1st Edition Seay
https://textbookfull.com/product/engaging-bioethics-an-
introduction-with-case-studies-1st-edition-seay/
Understanding Religious Violence: Radicalism and

Terrorism in Religion Explored via Six Case Studies
James Dingley
https://textbookfull.com/product/understanding-religious-
violence-radicalism-and-terrorism-in-religion-explored-via-six-
case-studies-james-dingley/
The Family Nurse Practitioner: Clinical Case Studies

(Case Studies in Nursing) Leslie Neal-Boylan
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-family-nurse-practitioner-
clinical-case-studies-case-studies-in-nursing-leslie-neal-boylan/
International Case Studies in Event Management

(Routledge International Case Studies in Tourism) 1st
Edition Edited By Judith Mair
https://textbookfull.com/product/international-case-studies-in-
event-management-routledge-international-case-studies-in-
tourism-1st-edition-edited-by-judith-mair/
Case Studies in Forensic Psychology Ruth Tully
https://textbookfull.com/product/case-studies-in-forensic-
psychology-ruth-tully/
Case Studies in Building Rehabilitation J.M.P.Q.

Delgado
https://textbookfull.com/product/case-studies-in-building-
rehabilitation-j-m-p-q-delgado/
Case Studies in Infection Control First Edition Chand
https://textbookfull.com/product/case-studies-in-infection-
control-first-edition-chand/
Oxford studies in philosophy of religion (Vol.7) 1st

Edition Kvanvig
https://textbookfull.com/product/oxford-studies-in-philosophy-of-
religion-vol-7-1st-edition-kvanvig/
Auditing: Principles and Practices 1st Edition Ashish

Kumar Sana
https://textbookfull.com/product/auditing-principles-and-
practices-1st-edition-ashish-kumar-sana/
Sana Loue
Case Studies
in Society,
Religion, and
Bioethics
Case Studies in Society, Religion, and Bioethics
Sana Loue
Case Studies in Society,

Religion, and Bioethics
With Contributions by Madison Carithers

Brandy L. Johnson, Hamasa Ebadi, Shaafae M. Hussain,
Ried E. Mackay, and Avery Zhou
Sana Loue
School of Medicine
Department of Bioethics
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH, USA
ISBN 978-3-030-44149-4 ISBN 978-3-030-44150-0 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44150-0
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgments
I have been privileged to teach for the last 3 years a graduate-level course at Case
Western Reserve University School of Medicine entitled, unsurprisingly, “Religion,
Society, and Bioethics.” It is the many class discussions on the topics considered
here that prompted me to move forward with this writing. I greatly appreciate the
contributions of many of my students to these discussions. In particular, I wish to
thank Nathaniel Hanna, Kathryn Miller, and Glen Wurdeman for their insights. I am
delighted that several of my former students contributed their perspectives and
research efforts to this text. Madison Carithers, Hamasa Ebadi, Shaafae Hussain,
Ried Mackay, and Avery Zhou contributed extensively to Chapter 3, relating to the
body modification of minors, and Madison Carithers additionally contributed to
Chapter 1, which focuses on homosexuality. Brandy Johnson has been a contributor
to several of my previous edited works. I am thrilled that she was able to collaborate
once again with the preparation of Chapter 5 on the refusal of medical treatment.
Gary Edmunds is to be thanked for his assistance with much of the literature
research.
Several authors have generously permitted me to utilize their figures in this text.
The figure in Chapter 9 of Dolly, illustrating reproductive cloning, was made pos-
sible by Squidonius through Wikimedia. B. Cornell is to be thanked for granting
permission for the use of what is Figure 9.2, illustrating normal development, repro-
ductive cloning, and therapeutic cloning. The geographic representation of laws
relating to sexual orientation in Chapter 2 was made possible by the International
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) which permits its
use with acknowledgment. Portions of Chapter 5 originally appeared in a book I had
previously published with Springer Science+Business, LLC, in 2017, Handbook of
Religion and Spirituality in Social Work Practice and Research, and are reprinted
here with permission.
Finally, last but certainly not least, I am fortunate to once again have the oppor-
tunity to work with Janet Kim as my editor at Springer. I am very appreciative of her
insights, her support, and her consistently positive outlook.
v
Contents
1 Society, Religion, and Bioethics�� 1

Religion and Bioethics�� 1
Bioethical Frameworks�� 2
References�� 8
2 Homosexuality: Sin, Crime, Pathology, Identity, Behavior�� 13
Same-Sex Relations as Sin�� 13
Judaism�� 13
Christianity�� 14
Islam�� 16
Evolving Religious Perspectives�� 17
The Criminalization of Sin�� 19
Sin and Crime Transformed: Same-Sex Behavior as Mental Illness �� 20
Society and Religion: Implications for Bioethics�� 26
References�� 31
3 Body Modification of Minors�� 37
Introduction�� 37
Nontherapeutic Male Circumcision �� 38
The Religious Basis for Male Circumcision: Judaism�� 38
Male Circumcision in Islam�� 40
Christian Perspectives on Infant Male Circumcision�� 42
Medical Procedure for Circumcision �� 43
Potential Benefits and Harms�� 44
Female Genital Cutting�� 45
Nontherapeutic Female Genital Cutting�� 46
Medical Procedure for Female Genital Cutting �� 47
Potential Harms and Benefits�� 48
Other Body Modifications�� 50
Religion and Society: Changing Bioethical Understandings�� 53
References�� 61
vii
viii Contents
4 Medical Error: Truthtelling, Apology, and Forgiveness�� 73

Apology, Truthtelling, and Forgiveness in the Secular Literature �� 74
Apology�� 74
Forgiveness and Unforgiveness�� 75
Apology, Truthtelling, and Forgiveness in the Abrahamic
Faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam�� 77
Judaism�� 77
Islam�� 79
Apology, Truthtelling, and Forgiveness in Buddhism and Hinduism�� 81
Medical Error, Truthtelling, and Apology�� 82
Defining Medical Error�� 82
To Tell or Not to Tell�� 83
The Context of Apology�� 88
Apology Laws�� 88
Morbidity Mortality Conference�� 89
Mediation �� 90
Restorative Justice�� 91
Apology, Forgiveness, and Healing �� 92
References�� 93
5 Religious Refusal of Medical Treatment*�� 103
Contested Authority �� 103
The Religious Basis for Refusal of Care�� 104
Christian Science �� 104
The Pentecostal Faith�� 107
Jehovah’s Witnesses �� 110
Ethical Obligations of Healthcare Providers�� 114
Refusal of Blood�� 114
Societal Responses to Religious Refusal �� 116
The United States�� 117
Other Jurisdictions �� 162
References�� 163
6 Care of the Stranger: Medical Deportation of Noncitizens�� 171
Immigrants in the United States�� 171
The Noncitizen Stranger and Healthcare �� 172
The Stranger and the Abrahamic Faiths�� 174
Hospitality and the Stranger in Judaism�� 174
Christianity, the New/Second Testament, and the Stranger �� 177
Islam and the Stranger �� 178
Physicians and Patients: Ethical Obligations �� 179
Conclusion �� 182
Contents ix
7 Nazism, Religion, and Human Experimentation�� 189

Nazism and Antisemitism�� 189
German Medicine and the Embrace of Racial Hygiene�� 190
The Transformation of Medicine �� 195
The Transformation of Medical Experimentation
and Research Ethics �� 196
Physicians, Nazism, and Religion�� 197
Implications for Bioethics and Bioethicists �� 200
8 Animal Experimentation in Biomedical Science�� 209
Religious Views of Animal Experimentation�� 211
Judaism�� 211
Islam�� 217
Secular Approaches�� 219
Current Standards for the Use of Animals in Research �� 221
The Regulatory Framework �� 221
9 The New Frontier: Cloning �� 229
Cloning: Science Fiction or Reality? �� 229
Cloning-to-Produce-Children (Reproductive Cloning) �� 231
Cloning-for-Biomedical-Research (Therapeutic Cloning)�� 242
10 Concluding Remarks �� 253
Index�� 257
Index to Legal References �� 265
Index to Scriptural References �� 267

List of Figures
Fig. 2.1 Sexual Orientation Laws in the World—2019. By Luis

Ramón Mendos, in State-Sponsored Homophobia,
From ILGA World—The International Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, ilga.org �� 27
Fig. 9.1 Dolly, Illustrating Reproductive Cloning. By Squidonius
(talk) – Own work (Original text: self-made),
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.
php?curid=10532979�� 230
Fig. 9.2 Comparison of normal development, reproductive cloning,
and therapeutic cloning processes. (Reprinted with permission.
By B. Cornell. (2016). Artificial cloning. [ONLINE]
https://ib.bioninja.com.au/standard-level/topic-3-genetics/35-
genetic-modification-and/artificial-cloning.html.
Accessed 31 December 2019)�� 232
xi
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Summary of purported potential benefits and harms

from infant male circumcision�� 46
Table 3.2 Purported benefits and harms of female genital cutting �� 49
Table 3.3 Comparison of rationales for male and female
genital cutting (similar rationales noted in italics) �� 50
Table 3.4 Predominant religion and laws relating to body
modification of minors in a sample of countriesa �� 54
Table 4.1 Potential benefits and harms resulting from physician
disclosure of error/mistake �� 84
Table 5.1 Tenets of Christian Science (paraphrased) �� 105
Table 5.2 Blood components and procedures permitted
and not permitted by Jehovah’s Witnesses �� 112
Table 5.3 Provisions relating to court intervention for religious
denial of medical treatment for children�� 119
Table 5.4 Civil provisions relating to religious denial of medical
treatment for children �� 126
Table 5.5 Criminal provisions relating to religious denial
of medical treatment for children �� 143
Table 7.1 Anti-Jewish measures implemented under Nazi regime�� 191
Table 7.2 Focus, nature, and location of Nazi medical experiments�� 197
Table 8.1 Features and requirements of Institutional Animal Care
and Use Committees�� 222
Table 9.1 Summary of arguments for and against
cloning-to-produce-children (Reproductive Cloning)�� 233
Table 9.2 Summary of arguments for and against cloning-
for-biomedical-research (therapeutic cloning) �� 243
xiii
About the Author
Sana Loue is a professor in the Department of Bioethics of Case Western Reserve

University School of Medicine. She holds secondary appointments in Psychiatry,
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Global Health. She served as the Vice Dean for
Faculty Development and Diversity for almost 8 years. She holds degrees in epide-
miology (PhD), medical anthropology (PhD), social work (MSSA), secondary edu-
cation (MA), public health (MPH), and theology (MA). She previously practiced
law for 13 years. She holds an active license as an independent social worker-
supervisor (Ohio) and has been ordained as a modern rabbi (Rabbinical Seminary
International) and interfaith minister (The New Seminary). She has conducted
research domestically and internationally, focusing on HIV risk and prevention,
severe mental illness, family violence, and research ethics. She has authored or
edited more than 30 books and more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles.
xv
About the Contributors
Madison Carithers, MA, obtained her Masters of Arts in Bioethics and Medical
Humanities from Case Western Reserve University. Her Masters capstone focused
on issues arising at the intersection of religion and mental illnesses. She received
her BS degree from Clemson University with a focus on health science and a con-
centration in preprofessional health studies.
Shaafae M. Hussain, MA, is a recent graduate of the Case Western Reserve

University School of Medicine’s Master in Bioethics and Medical Humanities
degree program with a concentration in medicine, society, and culture. His research
interest focuses on Islam and bioethics as they relate to the practice of newborn
male circumcision. Shaafae will attend medical school in the coming years and
continue studying bioethics and body modification.
Brandy L. Johnson, JD, is a senior partner at Early & Miranda, P.C. She gradu-
ated from Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, in 2000 with a Bachelor of Arts
in Political Science with a minor in Administration of Justice. She received her Juris
Doctorate, magnum cum laude, from Southern Illinois University School of Law in
2003. She was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 2003 and in Missouri in 2004.
In 2015 and 2016, she was selected as an emerging lawyer by leading lawyers. In
2017, she received an AV Preeminent Rating and a Silver Client Champion Rating
from Martindale-Hubbell and was selected as a leading lawyer in 2017, 2018,
and 2019.
She is admitted to practice law in all courts in the states of Missouri and Illinois
as well as in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois. She is a member of the Illinois State Bar
Association, The Missouri Bar Association, the Jackson County Bar Association
(Illinois), the Inns of Court, and the Illinois Legal Aid Diversity and Inclusion
Working Group.
xvii
xviii About the Contributors
She concentrates her practice in workers’ compensation and employment law,

but has experience in the areas of premises liability, personal injury, and appellate
practice. She has published articles in various journals, including the Journal of
Legal Medicine, the Journal of Health Law, the Hematology Oncology Clinics of
North America Health Law and Policy, and Public Risk Magazine. She has also
contributed chapters to the Encyclopedia of Women’s Health, the Encyclopedia of
Aging and Public Health, the Missouri Medical Law Report, the Encyclopedia of
Immigrant Health, the HIV/AIDS Desk Reference for Mental Health Professionals,
and Forensic Epidemiology in the Global Context. She has served as a speaker at
numerous seminars related to workers’ compensation and speaks on the subject in
Illinois, Missouri, and nationally.
Ried E. Mackay, MA, is currently a PhD student at Texas A&M University in the
Department of Sociology studying Organizational, Political, and Economic
Sociology and Race and Ethnicity. His research interests include bioethics, Native
American healthcare, and Native American healthcare policy. In addition, he has a
recent interest in the new field of astrosociology.
Avery Zhou, MA, is currently a medical student at the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas, School of Medicine. She graduated cum laude from the Integrated Graduate
Studies Program at Case Western Reserve University in 2019, earning a BA in
Psychology with honors, a BA in Biology, and an MA in Bioethics and Medical
Humanities.
Chapter 1
Society, Religion, and Bioethics
Religion and Bioethics
Recent data indicate a decline in the numbers of individuals in the United States
who claim a religious affiliation and a corresponding increase in the number who
self-identify as unaffiliated with a specific faith tradition (Pew Research Center,
2015). Nevertheless, even among those who claim no religious affiliation, the vast
majority professes a belief in God, and a large proportion prays on a daily basis
(Pew Research Center, 2012b). Worldwide, more than 80% of individuals claim a
religious affiliation (Pew Research Center, 2012a), and, while the absolute number
of individuals who claim no religious affiliation is expected to grow by 2050, their
proportion of the worldwide population is expected to diminish.
But what is meant by religion? Some might suggest that religion consists only of
the sacred texts, formal beliefs, and authoritative pronouncements that are particular
to a specific faith. This conceptualization, however, leads to the essentialization of a
particular faith and an identity, thereby ignoring the nuances that shape understand-
ings and practice. Indeed, individuals may claim a religious affiliation or identity in
the absence of adherence to what may be considered the major tenets of a faith. It
should not be surprising that even within a specific religion or secular orientation,
perspectives are not monolithic, and multiple normative frameworks likely exist
(Clarke, Eich, & Schreiber, 2015; Coward & Sidhu, 2000; Iltis, 2011; Marshall,
Thomasma, & Bergsma, 1994; Pauls & Hutchinson, 2002; Reichley, 2003;
Thohaben, 2016). As has been noted:
[r]eligion … is not a realm distinct from the rest of culture. It is mediated, administered,
lived, contested, and adapted by socially situated agents, just like other forms of culture—
and in relation to them. (Bailey & Redden, 2011, p. 3)
Additionally, religious identity may be shaped and modified by race, sex, class, and
geography (Brody & Macdonald, 2013).
Bioethical issues often arise in the most intimate and private moments of an
individual’s life—whether to seek an abortion when an ultrasound examination or
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

S. Loue, Case Studies in Society, Religion, and Bioethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44150-0_1
2 1 Society, Religion, and Bioethics
other test reveals a defect that will cause suffering and shorten the life of a yet
unborn infant; whether family members will endorse a “do not resuscitate” order for
their loved one; and whether a physician should acquiesce to a patient’s request that
he or she pray with him for a cure for his cancer (see Lo et al., 2003). Many patients
may turn to their faiths and their religious authorities in an effort to find meaning in
both the question and the answer. So, too, many healthcare providers seek guidance
within their own faith traditions while recognizing that in any given situation, they
must act in the patient’s best interests and consider the patient’s wishes and prefer-
ences (Lo et al., 2003).
Although religion is often considered a private matter (Campbell, 1990; Wind,
1990) as in the scenarios indicated above, it is also in many ways a very public one
(Brody & Macdonald, 2013; Campbell, 2012; Wind, 1990). As an example, reli-
gious concepts of health and disease may give rise to and reflect both our individual
and societal understandings of the world, which may or may not be in accord with
each other. Is disease to be cured by prayer and faith or by reliance on medicine?
Are homosexuals sinners, as some faith communities would assert? Are they crimi-
nals, committing unspeakable acts? Or are they to be seen as victims of environ-
mental or genetic influences (see Campbell, 1990)? The interplay of religion and
bioethics in both the private and public spheres of our lives is reflected in societal
debates and efforts to resolve or accommodate various perspectives with respect to
mandates for childhood vaccinations (Kahn, 2016); forms of end-of-life care and
the availability of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia (Iltis, 2011; Kahn,
2016; Turner, 2005); the definition of death (Iltis, 2011; Kahn, 2016); the permis-
sibility and availability of abortion and contraception (Iltis, 2011); the provision of
medical care, including blood transfusion (Turner, 2004), to children whose parents
decline such treatment in favor of prayer; the establishment of religious exemptions
to child abuse and neglect laws (American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on
Bioethics, 2013); and the public funding of unproven religious or spiritual treat-
ments for illness and disease (American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on
Bioethics, 2013). Bioethical issues have become increasingly globalized as we
tackle cross-border issues related to organ donation and transplantation, physician-
assisted suicide and euthanasia, stem cell research, and accessibility of care, as well
as others.
Bioethical Frameworks
One must ask, then, what framework or frameworks are available to us to explore
and address such critical issues. Attribution is often accorded to various theologians,
including Richard McCormick, Charles Curran, James Gustafson, Edmund
Pellegrino, Paul Ramsey, and others, for the initial formulation and development of
bioethics (Borry, Schotsmans, & Dierickx, 2005; Cahill, 2003; Jonsen, 2006;
Messikomer, Fox, & Swazey, 2001; Turner, 2004; see Brody & Macdonald, 2013),
and bioethics has often been linked to a particular religious framework (e.g., Becker,
1990; Dorff, 1996; Florida, 1993; Gustafson, 1975; Rosner & Bleich, 2000). Some
Bioethical Frameworks 3
of these individuals, such as Gustafson (1975), premised their analyses in bioethical

debates on religious perspectives. As one example of this approach, evangelicalism
has often relied on biblicism, drawing its arguments directly from biblical state-
ments, even though the Bible does not address many of our current bioethical issues
and even though the passages referred to do not directly address the issue under
examination (Hollinger, 1989).1 Some, such as Paul Ramsey (1970), avoided the use
of theological language and premised their arguments, instead, on a broader founda-
tion. However, a more public, secular tradition by philosophers was later deemed
necessary in order to address the inability of religiously premised bioethics to
inform secular, public, and institutional policy.2
Principlism has been one of the primary secular approaches utilized as an ana-
lytical framework for decisionmaking. This analytical approach requires the appli-
cation in a given situation of four principles: respect for persons, beneficence,
nonmaleficence, and justice (Beauchamp & Childress, 1994). The concepts of
autonomy and special protections derive from the principle of respect for persons.
The framework has been widely adopted, as reflected in the ethical guidelines pro-
mulgated by both international organizations (e.g., Council for International
Organizations of Medical Sciences, 2016) and those of various countries (e.g.,
Indian Council of Medical Research, 2017; Uganda National Council for Science
and Technology, 2014; United States National Commission for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). Although the
approach identifies the principles to be applied, it does not offer guidance as to how
a conflict in the application of the principles is to be resolved (Saifudden, Rahman,
Isa, & Baharuddin, 2014). As an example, a physician’s acceptance of an individu-
al’s refusal to accept a medically advised blood transfusion on the basis of his reli-
gious beliefs recognizes and respects the patient’s autonomy, but this resolution
necessarily minimizes the physician’s ability to act upon the principles of benefi-
cence, to maximize good and nonmaleficence, and to minimize harm, as understood
from the physician’s medical perspective.
The deontological approach derives from the philosophy of the eighteenth-
century philosopher Immanuel Kant. The primary principle of deontology is that of
the categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at
the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 1959, p. 39). It is
from this imperative that the principle prohibiting the use of individuals as a means
to an end is derived (Kant, 1996; see Secker, 1999).
1
For an example of reliance on specific biblical passages as the basis for ethical arguments, see
Payne, 2014.
2
The “narrative of emancipation” alleges that the development of secular bioethics represents a
freeing of bioethics from the worn, outdated, regimented approach offered by religiously premised
approaches (Kahn, 2016). For other analyses that examine this characterization, albeit without
using this term, see Carter (1993) and Hunter (1991). Hollinger (1989) has noted that evangelical-
ism has often led to efforts to apply moral principles in an absolutist, regimented fashion, an
approach that fails to address morally ambiguous situations and acknowledge social pluralism.
Gudolf (2013) similarly notes that the ethical system of many religions has been rule-based and
exceptionless.
The utilitarian approach, introduced by John Stuart Mill and later amplified by
Jeremy Bentham, posits that an action is good if it brings about the most benefit or
the least harm to the greatest number of individuals as possible (Driver, 2014). This
framework encompasses the principle of utility, to achieve as much good as possi-
ble; the measurement of goodness according to priority, which includes happiness,
satisfaction, autonomy, and personal relationship; an assessment of consequences
(consequentialism) such that assessment of an action is premised on the quality of
its consequences; and action on the basis of impartial and universal, rather than
personal, considerations (Beauchamp & Walters, 2003).
Consequentialism suggests that normative properties are based on consequences
alone. Classical utilitarianism is consequentialist, rather than deontological, because
it asserts that what is right depends entirely on consequences. However, saying that
the rightness of an action is dependent on the consequences does not address which
consequences are to be considered in judging the moral rightness of an action; con-
sequences may refer to the actual consequences, the intended consequences, the
value of the consequences, the total net good, or whether the consequences are good
to all people (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019).
Casuistry seeks to address ethical dilemmas by analyzing precedents in other
situations that are similar in critical respects to the situation at hand. It has been
defined as:
the interpretation of moral issues, using procedures of reasoning based on paradigms and
analogies, leading to the formulation of expert opinion about the existence and stringency
of particular moral obligations, framed in terms of rules or maxims that are general but not
universal or invariable, since they hold good with certainty only in the typical conditions of
the agent and circumstances of action. (Jonsen & Toulmin, 1988, p. 257)
Casuistry as a method for ethical analysis has been utilized by both rabbinic schol-
ars and Roman Catholic theologians (Gudolf, 2013) and is an important approach in
the context of clinical ethics (Freeman & Francis, 2006; Jonsen, 1991).
A secular, or “irreligious,” approach offers various advantages, including an
avoidance of ideological (religious) excesses; a basis for the identification of
implicit biases that may exist with a theological approach; recognition of the lack of
unanimity across religious bioethical perspectives (Murphy, 2012); the avoidance of
conclusions that can only be analyzed, evaluated, and justified on theological
grounds specific to a certain faith (Cohen, Wheeler, Scott, Edwards, Lusk, & the
Anglican Working Group in Bioethics, 2000; Murphy, 2012); and a refusal to toler-
ate or exhibit inequalities in access, equity, and standing in the here-and-now
(Murphy, 2012).
However, the neutrality of secular approaches to bioethics has been challenged
as value-laden and lacking neutrality,3 despite assertions to the contrary (Guinn,
2006; Kahn, 2016).4 It has been argued that the secular American bioethical model
3
One author has caustically asserted that when people “claim to be taking a neutral and impartial
view, it is far more likely that they just don’t know where they are” (Stempsey, 2012, p. 18).
4
In contrast to the narrative of emancipation, which claims that secular bioethics freed the field
from the intransigence of religious dogma, the “narrative of lamentation” argues that “religious
has led to reliance on a “small and restricted set of concepts” (Stempsey, 2011,
p. 340), a prioritization of autonomy and individual rights over other considerations
(Fox & Swazey, 2008; Stempsey, 2011; Tham, 2008); a de-emphasis on the interde-
pendent nature of relationships; and a disfavoring of ethical relativism in favor of a
universalistic approach (Fox & Swazey, 2008; Stempsey, 2011). The resulting
devaluation of religion in bioethics and the favoring of philosophy, law, and the
medical humanities are alleged to have led to an overreliance on law for the resolu-
tion of bioethical concerns, denial of our simultaneous membership in both particu-
lar moral communities and larger, pluralistic communities, and deprivation of the
wisdom and knowledge that has been derived from long-standing religious tradi-
tions (Callahan, 1990; Durante, 2009; Stempsey, 2011). It has been asserted that it
was the deficiencies of the principlistic approach that brought about competing
secular models, e.g., narrative ethics, feminist ethics, and utilitarian ethics, each of
which is deficient and which ultimately led to relativism, nihilism, and the inability
of bioethics to provide moral guidance (Tham, 2008).
Many societies are pluralistic, multicultural, and multifaith (Durante, 2009; Iltis,
2006; Turner, 2004), and understandings of moral obligations, science, reason, and
religion are not singular (Muir Grey, 1999; Shweder, 1991). Tension often exists in
pluralistic societies between reliance on a religious foundation, which is not univer-
sally shared, and secular tradition, which is also not universally shared and proceeds
from different assumptions (Campbell, 1990). As Callahan observed:
How are we as a community, dedicated to pluralism, to find room for different values and
moral perspectives of different people and different groups How are we to respect particu-
larism? … how as a community made up of diverse individuals and groups to find a way to
transcend differences in order to reach a consensus on some matters of common human
welfare? How, that is are we to respect universalism? … There can be no culturally and
psychologically perceptive ethics without taking into account the diversity of moral lives,
but there can be no ethics at all without universals …. (Callahan, 2000, pp. 37–38)
In contrast, some countries, such as Greece, Russia, Romania, and Israel, may lack
a large plurality of religion and/or reflect one central dogma that represents a signifi-
cant voice in debates relating to bioethical issues (Griniezakis & Symeonides,
2005). Nevertheless, as indicated earlier, even communities that embrace the same
faith are not monolithic but rather may embrace a variety of perspectives.
Accordingly, secular perspectives are neither as hegemonic nor as relativistic as
has been claimed, and religious perspectives are often not as limited as has often
been asserted. Understandings of morality, of what is considered to be of intrinsic
value, of what is considered to count as virtue (Veatch, 1999), of what is right and
good, and of what is wrong and evil, within each domain—the secular and the reli-
gious—are nuanced and may vary considerably (Iltis, 2011). Islamic bioethics, for
example, brings together discourse from the realms of law, science, medicine, and
voices were marginalized” and “muted” (Lammers, 1996, p. 19) and that secular theorists
attempted to hijack bioethical inquiry in the guise of neutrality. Narratives and counternarratives
have been developed in an effort to solidify and proselytize each group’s position (Kahn, 2016).
the state; how these elements are assembled and the reasoning that is produced vary
across specific contexts (Clarke, Eich, & Schreiber, 2015). Similarly, across societ-
ies adhering to a secular approach to bioethical injury and action, the acceptability
of a particular model for the physician-patient encounter may vary, often depending
upon cultural norms, the governing medicolegal framework, and the guidance pro-
vided by relevant professional organizations, societies, and licensing bodies (Clark-
Grill, 2010; Dickenson, 1999; Vincent, 1998). Whether founded on philosophical or
religious reasoning, the approach must address fundamental issues related to exis-
tence—the meaning of vulnerability, the meaning of life and of death, the meaning
of dignity, and the meaning of purpose. There are no easy answers to these ques-
tions, whether they are posed at the individual level or at the community or societal
level. How those answers are to be found and what those answers are may well
vary—and may need to vary—with the context in which they arise (see Wildes, 2002).
Numerous perspectives exist with respect to the ideal role of the state or society
in such debates, whether and to what extent one framework for morality should be
privileged over another (Iltis, 2011), whether the state is to have a limited or expan-
sive role, and whether individuals are to be left alone or mandated to use or not use
specific practices or procedures. As an example, in the United States, the First
Amendment to the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state,
mandating against the establishment of any religion as that of the state (the estab-
lishment clause) but also prohibiting interference in the exercise thereof (the free
exercise clause). The state may not discriminate between religions, favor a particu-
lar religion over others, or favor or disfavor religion over non-religion (Everson v.
Board of Education, 1947; Rosenberger v. Rector of the University of Virginia,
1995). That said, states are not precluded from regulating behavior even though
moral norms embedded in the country’s laws and institutional policies and proce-
dures, such as the prohibition of and punishment for murder, may reflect religious
precepts and commandments. However, the state must provide a secular justifica-
tion for the law.
Regardless of whether the state’s role is ultimately determined to be limited or
expansive, some groups and persons will be unhappy and dissatisfied due to the
resulting implications of what they can and cannot do. One writer has observed that:
[a]ll discourse requires a foundation—a series of assumptions—that generate content.
Moral content does not come from nowhere, and to privilege some sources …over others …
is to ignore the fact that all these position rely on fundamental assumptions that cannot be
definitely defended as the valid starting point for deliberation and none of which can be
proven to be the right starting point. (Iltis, 2009, p. 230)
Although at least one author has pessimistically asserted that the differences in per-
spective in many contested areas may be so large as to negate the possibility of any
compromise (Iltis, 2011),5 others have identified potential pathways toward collabo-
ration and/or compromise between religion or theology and secular bioethics
5
Englehardt’s assessment of Christian bioethics seems to suggest that no compromise is possible
between secular and Christian bioethics. He has observed:
(Cahill, 2003; Griniezakis & Symeonides, 2005; Kahn, 2016; Thohaben, 2016).
Griniezakis and Symeonides observed:
If by the word theology we mean a particular and unique line of argumentation, which
demands conclusion that will have only a religious character, then theology could rarely
exist within bioethical science. Narrow theological thoughts, restrictions, and dry apho-
risms, cannot lead to ethical axioms, to arguments, or particular conclusions with religious
character.…One can conclude that theology’s presence in bioethical discussion helps
inform the fullness of the faithful about contemporary bioethical achievements, and gives
the green light to the faithful to participation in various developments of life that do not
offend human nature.…Theology must produce challenges for working out decisions, not
of religious, but of theological character. Furthermore, theology will play a determinative
role in the cooperation between bioethics and other theoretical sciences. Theology can
stand as the binding link for these sciences. (Griniezakis & Symeonides, 2005, pp. 10–11)
Thohaben (2016) has suggested that it may be best to address prescriptive ethics in
the public square from middle axioms, that is, one level removed from foundational
discussions, which would facilitate participation by a broader array of individuals
and groups, and may permit practical agreement on specific moral issues (see also
Hollinger, 1989). He has also suggested that although Christians’ values may be
based on faith, they can translate those values in such a way as to permit cooperation
with others, recognizing that there may nevertheless continue to be some conflicts
(Thohaben, 2015). Cahill (2003) has posited that religion is especially poised to
contribute to issues related to social justice as it relates to access to healthcare and
the for-profit marketing of global research biotechnology to those consumers who
have access to greater wealth.
Each of the chapters of this text examines the interplay between religion, society,
and the resolution of a specific bioethical issue as reflect in practice and/or in law.
The sheer vastness of this inquiry precludes the inclusion of all possible examples
in this volume, despite their relevance to the focus of this work, e.g., definitions of
death, debates relating to the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining mecha-
nisms, abortion, contraception, organ donation, and transplantation.
A community’s morality depends on the moral premises, rules of evidence, and rules of
inference it acknowledges, as well as on the social structure of those in authority to rule
knowledge claims in or out of a community’s set of commitments. For Christians, who is an
authority and who is in authority are determined by the Holy tradition, through which in
Mysteries one experiences the Holy Spirit. Because of the requirement of repentance and
conversion to the message of Christ preserved in the tradition, the authority of the commu-
nity must not only exclude heretical teaching but heretical communities from commu-
nion … Christian bioethics should be non-ecumenical by recognizing that true moral
knowledge has particular moral content, is communal, and is not fully available outside of
the community of right worship. (Englehardt, 1995, p. 182)
He has also asserted that:

[f]or Christians, resolution of bioethical controversies will not be found through appeals to
foundational rational arguments or isolated scriptural quotations, but only in a Christian
community united in authentic faith. (Englehardt, 1995, p. 29)
Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 address issues that may arise in the context of interac-
tions between a healthcare provider, patient, and patient’s family: sexual orienta-
tion, male infant circumcision and female genital cutting, medical error, the refusal
of medical treatment for religious reasons, and medical deportation. That exchange,
however, is impacted not only by provider and patient conceptualizations of what is
right and wrong, or good or fair, but also the positions of professional organizations
and religious authorities, as well as the determinations of legislatures and courts.
These very private matters have very public dimensions. The interwoven nature of
religion, bioethics, and society is similarly evident in the context of research, which
is explored in Chaps. 7, 8 and 9, with discussions of the Nazi medical experiments,
the use of animals in research, and cloning for reproductive and therapeutic purposes.
References
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics. (2013). Conflicts between religious

or spiritual beliefs and pediatric care: Informed refusal, exemptions, and public funding.
Pediatrics, 132(5), 962–965.
Bailey, M., & Redden, G. (2011). Introduction: Religion as living culture. In M. Bailey &
G. Redden (Eds.), Mediating faiths: Religion and socio-cultural change in the twenty-first cen-
tury (pp. 1–24). Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics (4th ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Walters, L. R. (2003). Contemporary issues in bioethics. Belmont: Wadsworth
Publishing.
Becker, C. B. (1990). Buddhist views of suicide and euthanasia. Philosophy East and West, 40(4),
543–555.
Borry, P., Schotsmans, P., & Dierickx, K. (2005). The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics.
Bioethics, 19(1), 49–71.
Brody, H., & Macdonald, A. (2013). Religion and bioethics: Toward an expanded understanding.
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 34, 133–145.
Cahill, L. (2003). Bioethics, theology, and social change. Journal of Religious Ethics, 21(3),
363–398.
Callahan, D. (1990). Religion and the secularization of bioethics. Hastings Center Report,
20(4), 2–4.
Callahan, D. (2000). Universalism & particularism: Fighting to a draw. Hastings Center Report,
30(1), 37–44.
Campbell, A. T. (2012). Bioethics in the public square: Reflections on the how. Journal of Medical
Ethics, 38, 439–441.
Campbell, C. S. (1990). The moral meaning of religion for bioethics. Bulletin of the Pan American
Health Organization, 24(4), 386–393.
Carter, S. L. (1993). The culure of disbelief: How American law and politics trivialize religious
devotion. New York: Basic Books.
Clark-Grill, M. (2010). When listening to the people: Lessons from complementary and alternative
medicine (CAM) for bioethics. Bioethical Inquiry, 7, 71–81.
Clarke, M., Eich, T., & Schreiber, J. (2015). The social politics of Islamic bioethics. Die Welt des
Islams, 55, 265–277.
References 9
Cohen, C. B., Wheeler, S. E., Scott, D. A., Edwards, B. S., Lusk, P., & The Anglican Working
Group in Bioethics. (2000). Prayer as therapy: A challenge to both religious belief and profes-
sional ethics. Hastings Center Report, 30(3), 40–47.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. (2016). International ethical guide-
lines for health-related research involving humans. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Coward, H., & Sidhu, T. (2000). Bioethics for clinicians: 19. Hinduism and Skkism. Canadian
Medical Association Journal, 163(9), 1167–1170.
Dickenson, D. L. (1999). Cross-cultural issues in European bioethics. Bioethics, 13, 249–255.
Dorff, E. N. (1996). The Jewish tradition: Religious beliefs and health care decisions. Chicago,
IL: Park Ridge Center.
Driver, J. (2014). The history of utilitarianism. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford,
CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. Available at
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/. Accessed 08 December 2019.
Durante, C. (2009). Bioethics in a pluralistic society: Bioethical methodology in lieu of moral
diversity. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 12, 35–47.
Englehardt Jr., H. T. (1995). Christian bioethics as non-ecumenical. Christian Bioethics, 1(2),
182–199.
Englehardt, H. T. (1995). Moral content, tradition, and grace: Rethinking the possibility of
Christian bioethics. Christian Bioethics, 1(1), 29–47.
Florida, R. E. (1993). Buddhist approaches to euthanasia. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses,
22(1), 35–47.
Fox, R., & Swazey, J. P. (2008). Observing bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, S. J., & Francis, P. C. (2006). Casuistry: A complement to principle ethics and a founda-
tion for ethical decisions. Counseling and Values, 50, 142–153.
Griniezakis, M., & Symeonides, N. (2005). Bioethics and Christian theology. Journal of Religion
and Health, 44(1), 7–11.
Gudorf, C. E. (2013). Comparative religious ethics: Everyday decisions for our everyday lives.
Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, Publishers.
Guinn, D. E. (2006). Introduction: Laying some of the groundwork. In D. E. Guinn (Ed.),
Handbook of bioethics and religion (pp. 3–19). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gustafson, J. M. (1975). The contributions of theology to medical ethics. Milwaukee, WI:
Marquette University Press.
Hollinger, D. (1989). Can bioethics be evangelical? Journal of Religious Ethics, 17(2), 161–179.
Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to define America. New York: Basic Books.
Indian Council of Medical Research. (2017). National ethical guidelines for biomedical and health
research involving human participants. Available at https://www.iitm.ac.in/downloads/ICMR_
Ethical_Guidelines_2017.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2018.
Iltis, A. S. (2011). Bioethics and the culture wars. Christian Bioethics, 17(1), 9–24.
Iltis, A. S. (2009). The failed search for the neutral in the secular: Public bioethics in the face of the
culture wars. Christian Bioethics, 15, 220–233.
Iltis, A. S. (2006). Look who’s talking: The interdisciplinarity of bioethics and the implications for
bioethics education. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 31(6), 629–641.
Jonsen, A. R. (2006). A history of religion and bioethics. In D. E. Guinn (Ed.), Handbook of bio-
ethics and religion (pp. 23–36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jonsen, A. R. (1991). Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics. Theoretical Medicine, 12,
295–301.
Jonsen, A. R., & Toulmin, S. E. (1988). The abuse of casuistry. Berkeley, CSA: Universty of
California Press.
Kahn, P. A. (2016). Bioethics, religion, and public policy: Intersections, interactions, and solu-
tions. Journal of Religion and Health, 55, 1546–1560.
Kant, I. (1959). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals (trans. L.W. Beck). Indianapolis: Bobbs-
Merrill company.
Kant, I. (1996). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Practical philosophy (trans.

M.J. Gregor). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Lammers, S. E. (1996). The marginalization of religious voices in bioethics. In A. Verhey (Ed.),
Religion and medical ethics: Looking backward, looking forward (pp. 19–26). Grand Rapids,
MI: William B. Erdmans.
Lo, B., Kates, L. W., Ruston, D., Arnold, R. M., Cohen, C. B., Puchalski, C. M., et al. (2003).
Responding to requests regarding prayer and religious ceremonies by patients near the end of
life and their families. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 6(3), 409–415.
Marshall, P., Thomasma, D. C., & Bergsma, J. (1994). Intercultural reasoning: The challenge for
international bioethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 3, 321–328.
Messikomer, C. M., Fox, R. C., & Swazey, J. P. (2001). The presence and influence of religion in
American bioethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 44(4), 485–508.
Muir Grey, J. A. (1999). Postmodern medicine. Lancet, 354, 1550–1553.
Murphy, T. F. (2012). In defense of irreligious bioethics. American Journal of Bioethics,
12(12), 3–10.
Pauls, M., & Hutchinson, R. C. (2002). Bioethics for clinicians: 28. Protestant bioethics. Canadian
Medical Association Journal, 166(3), 339–343.
Pew Research Center. (2015). America’s changing religious landscape. https://www.pewforum.
org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/. Accessed 03 November 2019.
Pew Research Center. (2012a). The global religious landscape. https://www.pewforum.
org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/. Accessed 03 November 2019.
Pew Research Center. (2012b). “Nones” on the rise. https://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/
nones-on-the-rise/. Accessed 03 November 2019.
Ramsey, P. (1970). Fabricated man: The ethics of genetic control. New Haven, CT: Yale
Universty Press.
Reichley, A. J. (2003). Faith in politics. In H. Heclo & W. M. McClay (Eds.), Religion returns to
the public square: Faith and policy in America (pp. 163–194). Washington, DC/Baltimore,
MD: Woodrow Wilson Center Press/Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rosner, F., & Bleich, J. D. (Eds.). (2000). Jewish bioethics. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House.
Saifudden, S. M., Rahman, N. N. A., Isa, N. M., & Baharuddin, A. (2014). Maqasid al-Shariah as
a complementary framework to conventional bioethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20,
317–327.
Secker, B. (1999). The appearance of Kant’s deontology in contemporary Kantianism: Concepts of
patient autonomy in bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 24(1), 43–66.
Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural psychology. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019). Consequentialism. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.
Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/. Accessed 09 December 2019.
Stempsey, W. E. (2012). Bioethics needs religion. American Journal of Bioethics, 12(12), 17–18.
Stempsey, W. E. (2011). Religion and bioethics: Can we talk? Bioethical Inquiry, 8, 339–350.
Tham, S. J. (2008). The secularization of bioethics. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 8(3),
443–453.
Thohaben, J. R. (2015). Bioethics after Christendom is gone: A Methodist evangelical perspective.
Christian Bioethics, 21(3), 282–302.
Thohaben, J. R. (2016). Natural law: A good idea that does not work very well (at least not in the
current secular society). Christian Bioethics, 22(2), 213–237.
Turner, L. (2004). Bioethics in pluralistic societies. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 7,
201–208.
Turner, L. (2005). From the local to the global: Bioethics and the concept of culture. Journal of
Medicine and Philosophy, 30, 305–320.
References 11
Uganda National Council of Science and Technology. (2014, July). National guidelines for
research involving humans as research participants. Available at https://uncst.go.ug/guide-
lines-and-forms/. Accessed 22 July 2018.
United States National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the
protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare.
Veatch, R. M. (1999). Theories of bioethics. Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, 9, 35–38.
Vincent, J. L. (1998). Information in the ICU: Are we being honest with our patients? The results
of a European questionnaire. Intensive Care Medicine, 24, 1251–1256.
Wildes, K. W. (2002). Religion in bioethics: A rebirth. Christian Bioethics, 8(2), 163–174.
Wind, J. P. (1990). What can religion offer bioethics? Hastings Center Report, 20(4), 18–20.
Legal References
Constitution
United States Constitution, First Amendment
Cases
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

Rosenberger v. Rector of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 753 (1995).
Chapter 2
Homosexuality: Sin, Crime, Pathology,
Identity, Behavior*
Same-Sex Relations as Sin
It was not until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that men who had
sexual relations with other men were viewed as a class apart, as individuals who,
because of their behavior, were seen as deviant (Foucault, 1978). Prior to that time,
it was the act of sex between males and the act of anal sex, whether between two
men or between a man and a woman, that was shunned and in some way penalized.
Judaism
Adherents to Judaism and Christianity have frequently looked to specific passages

in the Old/First Testament as authority for the characterization of male-male sex as
a sin against God. Within Judaism and Christianity, it has been argued, for example,
that because Genesis 1:26–29 “commands” man and woman to “be fruitful and
multiple,” it establishes a blueprint or parameters for human sexual relations:
Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27So
God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female
he created them. 28God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill
the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air
and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26–29; NRSV)1
1
All passages from the Old and New Testaments are from Coogan, 2007.
*With contributions by Madison Carithers.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 13

S. Loue, Case Studies in Society, Religion, and Bioethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44150-0_2
14 2 Homosexuality: Sin, Crime, Pathology, Identity, Behavior
The story of Lot and the angels in Sodom has also been used as the basis to charac-
terize male-male sexual relations as a sin and those who engage in it as sinners
(Goss, 1993; Ukleja, 1983; West, 1999). The story is written as follows:
The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom.
When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground.
2
He said, “Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night, and
wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend
the night in the square.”3But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered
his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4But before
they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to
the last man, surrounded the house; 5and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came
to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may know them.”6Lot went out of the door
to the men, shut the door after him, 7and said, “I beg you my brothers, do not act so wick-
edly. 8Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you,
and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the
shelter of my roof.” 9But they replied, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came here
as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.”
Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to break it down.
(Genesis 19:1–9; NRSV)
The story has been interpreted by those who condemn homosexuality and/or homo-
sexuals as meaning that the men’s desire “to know” the visitors reflects a desire to
know them sexually, that is, to engage in male-male sex (De Young, 1991); that
Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual
perversion and immorality (cf. Alter, 1990, 157); that the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah evidences the immorality of male-male sex, i.e., homosexuality (Feinberg,
1985; Fields, 1992; Ukleja, 1983); and that Lot is horrified that visitors may be
raped and the homosexual nature of sex is so wrong that Lot is willing to offer his
daughters. However, these asserted meanings have been highly contested by those
who argue that such readings ignore the historical and societal context in which the
passage was written (Furnish, 1994).
Two passages in Leviticus are frequently referenced as well. Leviticus 18:22
provides: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”
(NRSV). Leviticus 20:13 (NRSV) commands: “If a man lies with a male as with a
woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death;
their blood is upon them.”
Christianity
Unlike Judaism, Christianity draws from the New/Second Testament in addition to

the Old/First Testament. Although the meaning of statements by Paul in the New
Testament has been subject to great dispute,2 they have also been utilized as the
basis for the condemnation of homosexuality and/or homosexuals:
2
See, for example, the varying meanings attributed to this passage by Banister, 2009, Brooten,
1996, Hays, 1986, Scroggs, 1983, Smith, 1996, Townsley, 2011, Ward, 1997, and Winkler, 1990.
Same-Sex Relations as Sin 15
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of
those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is
plain to them. 20Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature,
invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.
So they are without excuse; 21for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or
give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were
darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23and they exchanged the glory of the
immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or for birds or four-footed
animals or reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to
the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about
God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed
forever! Amen. 26For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women
exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men, giving up
natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men com-
mitted shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their
error. (Romans 1:18–27, NRSV)
Some writers have argued, for example, that Paul’s words proclaim unequivocally
homosexuality’s sinfulness (Jepsen, 1995, 123; Malick, 1993, 340), its “distorting
consequence of the fall of the human race in the Garden of Eden” (Malick, 1993,
340), and its “perversion of God’s design for human sexual relations” (Malick,
1993, 340).
It has been asserted that Paul’s words served, as well, to draw a link between
sodomy and man’s lower physical impulses, suggesting that participation in such
acts defied man’s spiritual nature and constituted a repudiation of God (Gilbert,
1980/1981). For Paul had stated:
It follows, my friends, that our lower nature has no claim upon us: we are not obliged to live
on that level. If you do so, you must die. But if by the Spirit you put to death all the base
pursuits of the body, then you will live. (Romans 8:5–7, 12–13, NRSV)
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10thieves, the
greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
11
And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you
were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1
Corinthians 6:9–11, NRSV)
Timothy 1: 8–11 (NRSV) also suggests that sodomy is to be condemned:

8
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9This means understanding
that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the
godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for
murderers, 10fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is con-
trary to the sound teaching 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which
he entrusted to me. (NRSV)
The Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas characterized sex between two men and
sex between two women as the “vice of sodomy,” a sin more grave than even incest
or rape and exceeded in seriousness only by bestiality, “because use of the right sex
is not observed” (Aquinas, 1947, II–11 Q 154 Art. 11, 12).
16 2 Homosexuality: Sin, Crime, Pathology, Identity, Behavior
Islam
The Qur’an, Allah’s revelation to the Prophet Muhammad, serves as the foundation
for both the sacred and the everyday aspects of life (‘Abd al-Haqq, 2011; Jafari &
Suerdem, 2011). Other important sources include the Hadith, a collection of sayings
and deeds attributed to the Prophet Muhammad that were compiled by scholars after
his death, and Shari’a, or Islamic law. The four primary schools of Sunni legal
thinking (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali) and the two main schools of Shiite
legal thinking (Jafari and Zaidi) differ with respect to their interpretation of portions
of the Qur’an, their (non)acceptance of specific Hadiths or the weight to be attrib-
uted to them, and the extent to which analogy and inference may be utilized in
examining a question (Abdoul-Rouf, 2010; Mejia, 2007; US Agency for International
Development, n.d.). In addition to variations in the interpretation of relevant scrip-
ture stemming from these different schools of teaching, significant cultural differ-
ences exist between the many Muslim communities throughout the world and even
within one country. This discussion is not intended to diminish or trivialize these
differences but, instead, to identify common threads across these diverse interpreta-
tions and traditions that are relevant to the issues raised.
It has been asserted that all Islamic legal schools view male-male sex as unlaw-
ful, although they may differ in the severity of punishment (Wafer, 1997). Like
Judaism and Christianity, Islam relies to a great extent on a story similar to that of
Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah as the basis for its objections to same-sex sexual
relations. Unlike the Old/First and New/Second Testaments that proceed in a some-
what chronological order with their telling of events, the Qur’an does not. Various
chapters (sūrah) and verses together relate the story and the displeasure with the
conduct of the men against the strangers.3 Sūrah Al-A’raaf 7:80–84, for example,
provides:
And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no
creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but
ye are wanton folk.
Other sūrahs continue to express disapproval of the men’s behavior toward the
strangers as an abomination or senseless act:
And unto Lot we gave judgment and knowledge, and We delivered him from the commu-
nity that did abominations. Lo! they were folk of evil, lewd. (Sūrah An-Anbiyaa 21:74)
Must ye needs lust after men instead of women? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly.
(Sūrah An-Naml 27:55)
For come ye not in unto males, and cut ye not the road (for travellers), and commit ye not
abomination in your meetings? But the answer of his folk was only that they said: Bring
Allah's doom upon us if thou art a truthteller! (Sūrah Al-Ankaboot 29:29)
3
For a more complete understanding of the Qur’an’s story of Lot, see also sūrahs 11:77–83, 15:59,
26:165–175, 37:133 and 54:33–39. For a discussion of the relationship between male penetration
and aggression, see Duran, 1993 and Wafer, 1997.
Same-Sex Relations as Sin 17
An additional sūrah has been interpreted by some scholars to apply to all illicit
intercourse, while others have argued that it refers to men who engage in sexual
relations with each other (Ben Nahum, 1933). The interpretation may depend upon
the translation from the original Arabic and the extent to which one places the pas-
sage within the historical and cultural contexts at the time of its writing:
As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against
them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until
death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation). And as
for the two of you who are guilty thereof, punish them both. And if they repent and improve,
then let them be. Lo! Allah is ever relenting, Merciful. (Sūrah An-Nissa 4:15–16)
In addition, various Hadith, traditions or sayings attributed to the Prophet

Muhammad, indicate a prohibition against same-sex sexual relations. The Hadith of
Abu-Dawud, for example, declares:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If you find anyone
doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done. (Book
Al-Hudud 38, Hadith #4447)
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he
will be stoned to death. (Book Al-Hudud 38, Hadith #4448)
One writer has claimed that the scholar Ibn Abbās said, “The sodomite should be
thrown from the highest building in town and then stoned” (Bell, 1979). Abd al-
Rahman Doi, a professor of Shari’a, has asserted:
Sodomy or homosexuality is an unnatural act of sex to satisfy one’s passion … The Prophet
is reported to have said, “If a man commits an act of sex with a man, they both are adulterers
and if a woman commits such acts with a woman, then both of them are adulteresses [for
whom the punishment is death].” (Quoted in al-Haqq Kugle, 2003, p. 24)
Evolving Religious Perspectives
Orthodox Judaism continues to view homosexuality negatively and contrary to

Jewish law. Orthodox rabbis have portrayed homosexuality as unnatural stemming
from the fact that it is forbidden; described people who had homosexual attractions
but married the opposite sex as loathsome, despicable, and contemptible; labeled
homosexuality as “maximally selfish and lust-filling” and an abomination because
same-sex relations do not help to repopulate the earth; and identified the act of
homosexuality as the cause of “spiritual devastation” (Irshai, 2017).
Apart from Orthodox currents within Judaism, most Jewish denominations—
Reconstructionist/Reconstructing, Reform, and Conservative—consider homosexu-
als to be part of the Jewish community and do not view same-sex sexual relations as
abnormal (Dorff, Novak, & Mackler, 2008). Rather than relying on the passages of
the Torah (the five books of the Hebrew Bible) as the basis for a denunciation of
same-sex relations, the Torah itself may be viewed as a divine inspiration (Gordis,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
an unanswerable argument against him. I can scarcely, however, at
this moment forget how disconcerted I felt when he replied, “That is
nothing: I certainly never heard of Christians eating dead horse-
flesh, but I know they eat the flesh of swine, and God knows that is
worse!” “Grant me patience!” exclaimed I to myself; “this is almost
too much to bear, and to be silent.”
I endeavoured, by means of one of the Mandara people, to ask
some questions of some of these reputed Christians, but my
attempts were fruitless; they would hold no intercourse with any one;
and, on gaining permission, carried off the carcass of the horse to
the mountains, where, by the fires which blazed during the night, and
the yells that reached our ears, they no doubt held their savage and
brutal feast.
April 24.—The sultan of Mandara had given no intimation
whatever of his intentions with regard to Boo-Khaloom’s destination,
and in consequence the impatience and discontent of the latter were
extreme. Offerings poured in, from all the Kerdy nations; and the
sultan excused himself to Boo-Khaloom for the delay, on account of
the extreme tractability of the people around him, who, he said, were
becoming Musselmans without force. Again Musgow was
mentioned; adding, that the warlike arm of the Arabs, bearing the
sword of the Prophet, might turn their hearts. This hypocrisy,
however, Boo-Khaloom inveighed against most loudly to me,
declaring that the conversion of the Kerdy people would lose him
(the sultan) thousands of slaves, as their constant wars with each
other afford them the means of supplying him abundantly.
My own patience, also, this morning underwent a severe trial. I
applied to Barca Gana, by dawn of day, for one of his men to
accompany me to the mountains; and after some conversation a
chief was sent with me to the house of the suggamah (chief of the
town), who sent me to another, and he begged I might be taken to a
third. They all asked me a hundred questions, which was natural
enough; begged powder—looked at my gun—snapped the lock so
often, that I feared they would break it, exclaiming, “Y-e-o-o-o!
wonderful! wonderful!” when the fire came. At last, however, when I
once got it in my hand, I loaded both the barrels, and after that I
could not induce one of them to put their hands within five yards of it.
The last great man whose house I was taken to cunningly begged
me to fire, calling his slaves to stand round him while I complied with
his request: immediately after he asked for the gun, and carried it
into an inner court. I was kept full half an hour waiting; when about
ten slaves rushed out, gave me the gun, and told the guide to carry
me to the palace. I complained that they had stolen both my flints.
Every body came to look—crowded round me, exclaiming, “Y-e-o-o-
o!” and this was all the redress I could obtain. I soon after found out
that the flints were not my only loss; my pocket handkerchief also,
which several had petitioned for without success, had been stolen.
Arrived at the palace, I was desired to wait in the skiffa. I began to
walk about, but was told that was not allowed, that I must sit down
on the ground: after waiting nearly an hour, during which time I was
desirous more than once to return, but was told by my guide that it
was impossible until the sultan gave orders, I was conducted into the
presence of the chief eunuch; he desired me to stop within about
twelve yards of him, and then said, “The sultan could not imagine
what I wanted at the hills? Did I wish to catch the Kerdies alone?—
that I had better buy them,—he would sell me as many as I pleased.”
He then made some remark, which was not interpreted, and which
created a loud laugh in all the bystanders: the joke was evidently at
my expense, although I was not aware of its point. I assured him,
“that I did not wish to go at all to the hills if the sultan had the
slightest objection, that it was purely curiosity, and that as to catching
Kerdies, I would not take them if given to me.” This put us all to
rights; I gave him some powder, and he was as civil as he could be
to such a kafir as myself.
Six men, armed with large clubs and short daggers, were now
desired to go with me. The sultan’s anxiety for my safety, the eunuch
assured me, was the only reason I had found any difficulty. What
directions these, my satellites, had received, I know not, but they
watched me so closely, appeared so jealous of every stone I picked
up, that I did not venture to sketch the shape of a single hill. It was
now nearly mid-day, and we proceeded about three quarters of a
mile along the valley, which is on the south-west side of the town,
and advanced a little into two of the chasms, which appear in the
southernmost ridge of the chain. In one of these we found a beautiful
stream of water, bubbling from a bed of glittering sand, under two
immense blocks of granite, which seemed to form a rude arch over
the spot. Several naked people, chiefly women and girls, ran from
the place as we approached, and scrambled up the side of the
mountain with the most monkey-like agility. I was abundantly
assured that this chain of mountains, the highest parts of which, in
the neighbourhood of Mandara, do not exceed two thousand five
hundred feet, extends nearly south for more than two months’
journey—how much beyond that they know not. The only
communication, in this direction, is by means of a few venturesome
freed slaves, who penetrate into these countries with beads and
tobes, which are eagerly bought up, as well as turkadies from
Soudan, and slaves and skins are given in exchange. The nations
are very numerous; generally paint, and stain their bodies of different
colours, and live in common, without any regard to relationship.
Large lakes are frequently met with, plentifully supplied with fish.
Mangoes, wild figs, and ground nuts, are found in the valleys. It does
not appear that any other metal besides iron, which is abundant, has
been discovered in these hills: near Karowa, to the south-west of
Mandara, it is most plentiful.
The sound of the sultan’s trumpets, now heard at a distance,
created a strong sensation amongst my attendants; they all declared
we must return instantly; and when I very gently attempted to
remonstrate a little, one of them took hold of the reins of my horse
without any ceremony, turned him round, and led him on, while all
the rest followed towards the town; of course I very quietly
submitted, wondering what was the cause of alarm: it was, however,
nothing but that the Sultan was giving audience, and these
gentlemen of the chamber did not choose to be absent. They left me
as soon as we approached the houses, and I was then instantly
surrounded by at least a hundred others, who were so anxious to put
their hands into, and examine, every thing about me, that I put spurs
to my horse, and made the best of my way to the camp. I was
exceedingly fatigued with my morning’s work, and crept into my tent,
where I endured three hours of misery from a degree of excessive
heat, surpassing all I could have supposed mankind were born to
suffer here below.
Barca Gana sent to me soon after, and I found him preparing to
receive one of the chief eunuchs of the sultan in his outward tent; his
people all sitting round him on the sand, with their backs towards
their chief, and eyes inclined downwards. Nothing can be more
solemn than these interviews; not an eye is raised, or a smile seen,
or a word spoken, beyond “Long life to you! A happy old age!
Blessing! Blessing! May you trample on your enemies! Please God!
Please God!” then the fatah, which is seldom or never omitted. The
great man first inquired, “why I went to the hills; and what I wanted
with the stones I had picked up, and put in a bag which I carried near
my saddle?” Barca Gana applied to me for information, and the bag
was sent for. My specimens were not more than fifteen in number,
and the eunuch, laying his hand on two pieces of fine grained
granite, and some quartz, asked, “how many dollars they would bring
in my country?” I smiled, and told him, “Not one: that I had no object
in taking them beyond curiosity—that we had as much in England as
would cover his whole country, and that I was pleased to find similar
natural productions here. Assure the sultan,” added I, to Barca
Gana, “that to take any thing from any of the inhabitants of these
countries is not the wish of the English king: the sheikh knows our
intentions, which are rather to make them acquainted with European
produce; and if useful to them, send more into their country.” “True,
true!” said Barca Gana: “what have you brought for the sultan?”—
and here I was again in a dilemma. I had only one small looking-
glass of my own; neither knives, scissors, nor beads, although we
had cases of them at Bornou. Something, however, was necessary
to be given; I therefore sent for my trunk, and gave the sultan two
French red imitation shawls, which I had bought for my own use, my
own razor, and a pair of scissors; while for himself the eunuch took
my two remaining pocket-handkerchiefs, and a coloured muslin one,
with which he appeared to be highly delighted.
From a Sketch by Major Denham. Engraved by E. Finden.
MANDARA MUSICIANS.
Published Feb. 1826, by John Murray, London.
April 25.—The news of the presents I had produced brought early

this morning fifteen of the sultan’s sons, with double the number of
followers, to my tent: they all wanted gunpowder, knives, and
scissors; I had however neither one nor the other to give them. Two
or three of the oldest of the princes got a French silk handkerchief
each, and one a pair of cotton socks, and, of course, the others went
away sadly discontented. I this morning ventured to make two
attempts at sketching, but my apparatus and myself were carried off
without ceremony to the sultan. My pencils marking without ink,
created great astonishment, and the facility with which its traces
were effaced by India rubber seemed still more astonishing. My old
antagonist, Malem Chadily, was there, and affected to treat me with
great complaisance: he talked a great deal about me and my
country, which made his hearers repeatedly cry out, “Y-e-o-o-o!” but
what the purport of his observations were I could not make out. I
endeavoured, however, to forget all his former rudeness, took every
thing in good part, and appeared quite upon as good terms with him
as he evidently wished to appear to be with me. Several words were
written both by him and the others, which the rubber left no remains
of; at length the fighi wrote Bismillah arachmani aracheme (in the
name of the great and most merciful God), in large Koran characters;
he made so deep an impression on the paper, that, after using the
Indian rubber, the words still appeared legible: “This will not quite
disappear,” said I. “No, no!” exclaimed the fighi, exulting; “they are
the words of God, delivered to our Prophet! I defy you to erase
them!” “Probably so,” said I; “then it will be in vain to try.” He showed
the paper to the sultan, and then around him, with great satisfaction;
they all exclaimed, “Y-e-o-o-o! La illah el Allah! Mohammed rassoul
Allah!”—cast looks at me expressive of mingled pity and contempt,
and I was well pleased when allowed to take my departure.
The whole of this scene was repeated to Barca Gana in his tent in
the evening, and they all exclaimed “Wonderful! Wonderful!” and as I
did not contradict any part of his account, the fighi thus addressed
me: “Rais, you have seen a miracle! I will show you hundreds,
performed alone by the words of the wonderful book! You have a
book also, you say, but it must be false.—Why? Because it says
nothing of Saidna Mohammed, that is enough.—Shed! Shed! turn!
turn! say ‘God is God, and Mohammed is his prophet.’ Sully (wash),
and become clean, and paradise is open to you: without this, what
can save you from eternal fire? Nothing!—Oh! I shall see you while
sitting in the third heaven, in the midst of the flames, crying out to
your friend Barca Gana and myself, ‘Malem, saherbi! (friend), give
me a drink or a drop of water!’ but the gulf will be between us, and
then it will be too late.” The Malem’s tears flowed in abundance
during this harangue, and every body appeared affected by his
eloquence.
I felt myself, at this period, extremely uncomfortable; and Barca
Gana, who saw my distress, called me into the inner tent, where
nobody accompanied him, except by invitation. “The fighi,” said he,
“is a rajal alem (clever man).” “Very likely,” said I; “but he surely
might leave me to my own belief, as I leave him to his.” “Staffer
Allah!” (God forbid!) said he. “Do not compare them.” “I do not,” said
I, “God knows; but you, Kashella, should protect me from such
repeated annoyances.” “No,” replied Barca, “in this I cannot interfere.
Malem is a holy man. Please God! you will be enlightened, and I
know the sheikh wishes it; he likes you, and would you stay amongst
us, he would give you fifty slaves of great beauty, build you a house
like his son’s, and give you wives from the families of any of his
subjects you choose!” “Were you to return to England with me,
Kashella, as you sometimes talk about, with the sheikh’s permission,
would it not be disgraceful for you to turn Christian, and remain?
Were I to do as you would have me, how should I answer to my
sultan who sent me?” “God forbid!” said he; “you are comparing our
faiths again. I propose to you eternal paradise, while you would bring
me to ——.” “Not a word more,” said I.—“Good night!” “Peace be
with you! I hope we shall always be friends,” said he. “Please God!”
returned I. “Amen!” said the kashella.
This night we had a more dreadful storm than I ever remember
being out in. The top of my Egyptian tent, which I had preferred
bringing on account of its portability, was carried completely off, and
the pole broken. The brightness of the lightning rendered it more like
noon than midnight: a tamarind-tree was torn up by its roots in the
valley near us; huge masses of stone rolled down the sides of the
mountain; and I crept into a corner of Barca Gana’s outer tent, where
slept his guard; and, although every rag about me was drenched
with water, I was in a short time insensible to the storm which raged
around me.
In the morning, however, I suffered considerably from pains in all
my limbs and head. The Arabs, also, were full of complaints, and
extremely dissatisfied with their situation; they loudly exclaimed
against their delay. They had, for days, eaten nothing but a little flour
and water, without fat: the sultan of Mandara would grant them no
supply, and they demanded of Boo-Khaloom to go on, or turn back.
The rain again fell in torrents, which is an Arab’s greatest dread, and
they assembled round Boo-Khaloom’s tent, almost in a state of
mutiny. Boo-Khaloom himself was excessively ill, more, I believe,
from vexation than sickness. He had a long interview with the sultan,
and returned very much irritated: he merely told me, as he passed,
“that we should move in the evening;” and when I asked, “if every
thing went well?” he merely answered, “In shallah!” (please God).
The Arabs, from whom he kept his destination a secret, received him
with cheers. Whom they were going against they cared but little, so
long as there was a prospect of plunder, and the whole camp
became a busy scene of preparation.
Two hours after noon we commenced our march through a
beautiful valley to the east of Mora, winding round the hills which
overhang the town, and penetrating into the heart of the mass of
mountains nearly to the south of it. About sunset we halted in a very
picturesque spot, called Hairey, surrounded by a superb
amphitheatre of hills. Barca Gana’s tent was pitched under the
shade of one side of an immense tree, called gubberah, much
resembling a fig-tree, although wanting its delicious fruit; and the
remnants of my tent, which had been mended by his people, and
now stood about three feet from the ground, were placed on the
opposite side. The trunks of these trees commonly measure ten and
twelve yards in circumference near the root, and I have seen them
covering more than half an acre of ground with their wide-spreading
branches.
Pass of Hairy in the Mandara Mountains.
D. Denham. J. & C. Walker Sculp.
(Large-size)
Published as the Act directs Feby. 1826, by John Murray Albemarle St. London.
Soon after our arrival, the sultan’s trumpets announced his

approach, and he took up his station, at no great distance, under a
tree of the same kind: he never used a tent, but slept in an open
space, surrounded by his eunuchs. At Hairey are the remains of a
Mandara town, long since destroyed by the Felatahs; parts of the
mud walls were still standing, and under shelter of these the troops
bivouacked. The scorpions, however, made their appearance in the
course of the night in great numbers, and several men were stung by
them: on hearing the disturbance, and learning the cause, I called
my negro, and, striking a light, we killed three in my tent; one of them
was full six inches in length, of the black kind, exactly resembling
those I had seen in Tripoli.
In consequence of Boo-Khaloom’s illness, it was after daylight
when we broke up from our encampment, and probably the
mountain scenery, by which we were surrounded, could scarcely be
exceeded in beauty and richness. On all sides the apparently
interminable chain of hills closed upon our view: in rugged
magnificence, and gigantic grandeur, though not to be compared
with the Higher Alps, the Apennines, the Jura, or even the Sierra
Morena, in magnitude, yet by none of these were they surpassed in
picturesque interest. The lofty peaks of Vahmy, Savah, Joggiday,
Munday, Vayah, Moyung, and Memay, with clustering villages on
their stony sides, appeared to the east and west of us; while Horza,
exceeding any of her sister hills in height, as well as in beauty,
appeared before us to the south, with its chasm or break through
which we were to pass; and the winding rugged path we were about
to tread was discernible in the distance. The valley in which I stood
had an elevation superior to that of any part of the kingdom of
Bornou, for we had gradually ascended ever since quitting Kouka; it
was in shape resembling a large pentagon, and conveyed strongly
the idea of its having been the bed or basin of some ancient lake, for
the disappearance of which all hypothesis would be vain and
useless. There were the marks of many outlets, some long and
narrow fissures, through which the waters might have broken; the
channel by which we had entered appearing most likely to have
carried off its contents.
On proceeding through the pass of Horza, where the ascent
continued, its perpendicular sides exceeding two thousand five
hundred feet in height, hung over our heads with a projection almost
frightful; the width of the valley did not exceed five hundred yards,
and the salient and re-entering angles so perfectly corresponded,
that one could almost imagine, if a similar convulsion of nature to
that which separated were to bring its sides again together, they
would unite, and leave no traces of their ever having been disjoined.
It was long after mid-day when we came to the mountain stream
called Mikwa, and it afforded an indescribable relief to our almost
famished horses and ourselves: the road, after quitting the Horza
pass, had been through an extensive and thickly-planted valley,
where the tree gubberah, the tamarind, a gigantic wild fig, and the
mangoe (called by the Mandaras ungerengera, and comonah by the
Bornouese), flourished in great numbers and beauty. This was the
first spot I had seen in Africa where Nature seemed at all to have
revelled in giving life to the vegetable kingdom; the leaves presented
a bright luxuriant verdure, and flowers, from a profusion of climbing
parasitical plants, winding round the trunks of the trees, left the
imagination in doubt as to which of them the fair aromatic blossoms
that perfumed the air were indebted for their nourishment. The
ground had frequent irregularities; and broken masses of granite, ten
and twelve feet in height, were lying in several places, but nearly
obscured by the thick underwood growing round them, and by the
trees, which had sprung up out of their crevices. The nearest part of
the hills, to which these blocks could have originally belonged, was
distant nearly two miles.
When the animals had drunk we again moved on, and after
eighteen miles of equally verdant country, more thickly wooded, we
came, after sunset, to another stream, near some low hills, called
Makkeray, where we were to halt for a few hours to refresh, and then
move again, so as to commence an attack on the Felatahs, who
were said to be only about sixteen miles distant, with the morning
sun.
Our supper, this night, which indeed was also our breakfast,
consisted of a little parched corn pounded and mixed with water, the
only food we had seen since leaving Mora. Nothing could look more
like fighting than the preparations of these Bornou warriors, although
nothing could well be more unlike it than the proof they gave on the
morrow. The closely-linked iron jackets of the chiefs were all put on,
and the sound of their clumsy and ill-shapen hammers, heard at
intervals during the night, told the employment of the greater part of
their followers.
About midnight the signal was given to advance. The moon, which
was in her third quarter, afforded us a clear and beautiful light, while
we moved on silently, and in good order, the sultan of Mandara’s
force marching in parallel columns to our own, and on our right. At
dawn, the whole army halted to sully: my own faith also taught me a
morning prayer, as well as that of a Musselman, though but too often
neglected.
As the day broke on the morning of the 28th of April, a most
interesting scene presented itself. The sultan of Mandara was close
on our flank, mounted on a very beautiful cream-coloured horse, with
several large red marks about him, and followed by his six favourite
eunuchs, and thirty of his sons, all being finely dressed, and
mounted on really superb horses; besides which, they had each from
five to six others, led by as many negroes: the sultan had at least
twelve. Barca Gana’s people all wore their red scarfs, or bornouses,
over their steel jackets, and the whole had a very fine effect. I took
my position at his right hand, and at a spot called Duggur we entered
a very thick wood, in two columns, at the end of which it was said we
were to find the enemy.
During the latter part of the night, while riding on in front with
Maramy, the sheikh’s negro, who had accompanied me from Kouka,
and who appeared to attach himself more closely to me as we
approached danger, we had started several animals of the leopard
species, who ran from us so swiftly, twisting their long tails in the air,
as to prevent our getting near them. We, however, now started one
of a larger kind, which Maramy assured me was so satiated with the
blood of a negro, whose carcass we found lying in the wood, that he
would be easily killed. I rode up to the spot just as a Shouaa had
planted the first spear in him, which passed through the neck, a little
above the shoulder, and came down between the animal’s legs; he
rolled over, broke the spear, and bounded off with the lower half in
his body. Another Shouaa galloped up within two arms’ length, and
thrust a second through his loins; and the savage animal, with a
woful howl, was in the act of springing on his pursuer, when an Arab
shot him through the head with a ball, which killed him on the spot. It
was a male panther (zazerma) of a very large size, and measured,
from the point of the tail to the nose, eight feet two inches; the skin
was yellow, and beautifully marked with orbicular spots on the upper
part of the body, while underneath, and at the throat, the spots were
oblong and irregular, intermixed with white. These animals are found
in great numbers in the woods bordering on Mandara: there are also
leopards, the skins of which I saw, but not in great numbers. The
panthers are as insidious as they are cruel; they will not attack any
thing that is likely to make resistance, but have been known to watch
a child for hours, while near the protection of huts or people. It will
often spring on a grown person, male or female, while carrying a
burthen, but always from behind: the flesh of a child or of a young kid
it will sometimes devour, but when any full-grown animal falls a prey
to its ferocity, it sucks the blood alone.
A range of minor hills, of more recent formation than the granite
chain from which they emanate (which I cannot but suppose to form
a part of El Gibel Gumhr, or Mountains of the Moon), approaches
quite to the skirts of the extensive wood through which we were
passing; and numerous deep ravines, and dry water-courses,
rendered the passage tedious and difficult. On emerging from the
wood, the large Felatah town of Dirkulla was perceivable, and the
Arabs were formed in front, headed by Boo-Khaloom: they were
flanked on each side by a large body of cavalry; and, as they moved
on, shouting the Arab war-cry, which is very inspiring, I thought I
could perceive a smile pass between Barca Gana and his chiefs, at
Boo-Khaloom’s expense. Dirkulla was quickly burnt, and another
smaller town near it; and the few inhabitants that were found in them,
who were chiefly infants, and aged persons unable to escape, were
put to death without mercy, or thrown into the flames.
We now came to a third town, in a situation capable of being
defended against assailants ten times as numerous as the besieged:
this town was called Musfeia. It was built on a rising ground between
two low hills at the base of others, forming part of the mass of the
Mandara mountains: a dry wadey extended along the front; beyond
the wadey a swamp; between this and the wood the road was
crossed by a deep ravine, which was not passable for more than two
or three horses at a time. The Felatahs had carried a very strong
fence of palisades, well pointed, and fastened together with thongs
of raw hide, six feet in height, from one hill to the other, and had
placed their bowmen behind the palisades, and on the rising ground,
with the wadey before them; their horse were all under cover of the
hills and the town:—this was a strong position. The Arabs, however,
moved on with great gallantry, without any support or co-operation
from the Bornou or Mandara troops, and notwithstanding the
showers of arrows, some poisoned, which were poured on them
from behind the palisades, Boo-Khaloom, with his handful of Arabs,
carried them in about half an hour, and dashed on, driving the
Felatahs up the sides of the hills. The women were every where
seen supplying their protectors with fresh arrows during this struggle;
and when they retreated to the hills, still shooting on their pursuers,
the women assisted by rolling down huge masses of the rock,
previously undermined for the purpose, which killed several of the
Arabs, and wounded others. Barca Gana, and about one hundred of
the Bornou spearmen, now supported Boo-Khaloom, and pierced
through and through some fifty unfortunates who were left wounded
near the stakes. I rode by his side as he pushed on quite into the
town, and a very desperate skirmish took place between Barca
Gana’s people and a small body of the Felatahs. These warriors
throw the spear with great dexterity; and three times I saw the man
transfixed to the earth who was dismounted for the purpose of firing
the town, and as often were those who rushed forward for that
purpose sacrificed for their temerity, by the Felatahs. Barca Gana,
whose muscular arm was almost gigantic, threw eight spears, which
all told, some of them at a distance of thirty or thirty-five yards, and
one particularly on a Felatah chief, who with his own hand had
brought four to the ground.
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·“Incidet ictus,
Ingens ad terram duplicato poplite Turnus.”
Had either the Mandara or the sheikh’s troops now moved up boldly,
notwithstanding the defence these people made, and the
reinforcements which showed themselves to the south-west, they
must have carried the town with the heights overlooking it, along
which the Arabs were driving the Felatahs by the terror their
miserable guns excited; but, instead of this, they still kept on the
other side of the wadey, out of reach of the arrows.
From a Sketch by Major Denham. Engraved by E. Finden.
ATTACK ON MUSFEIA.
Published Feb. 1826, by John Murray, London.
The Felatahs seeing their backwardness, now made an attack in

their turn: the arrows fell so thick that there was no standing against
them, and the Arabs gave way. The Felatah horse now came on;
and had not the little band round Barca Gana, and Boo-Khaloom,
with a few of his mounted Arabs, given them a very spirited check,
not one of us would probably have lived to see the following day: as
it was, Barca Gana had three horses hit under him, two of which died
almost immediately, the arrows being poisoned, and poor Boo-
Khaloom’s horse and himself received their death-wounds by arrows
of the same description. My horse was badly wounded in the neck,
just above the shoulder, and in the near hind leg: an arrow had
struck me in the face as it passed, merely drawing the blood, and I
had two sticking in my bornouse. The Arabs had suffered terribly;
most of them had two or three wounds, and one dropped near me
with five sticking in his head alone: two of Boo-Khaloom’s slaves
were killed also, near his person.
No sooner did the Mandara and Bornou troops see the defeat of
the Arabs, than they, one and all, took to flight in the most dastardly
manner, without having once been exposed to the arrows of the
enemy, and in the utmost confusion. The sultan of Mandara led the
way, who was prepared to take advantage of whatever plunder the
success of the Arabs might throw in his way, but no less determined
to leave the field the moment the fortune of the day appeared to be
against them.
I now for the first time, as I saw Barca Gana on a fresh horse,
lamented my own folly in so exposing myself, badly prepared as I
was for accidents. If either of my horse’s wounds were from
poisoned arrows, I felt that nothing could save me: however there
was not much time for reflection; we instantly became a flying mass,
and plunged, in the greatest disorder, into that wood we had but a
few hours before moved through with order, and very different
feelings. I had got a little to the westward of Barca Gana, in the
confusion which took place on our passing the ravine which had
been left just in our rear, and where upwards of one hundred of the
Bornowy were speared by the Felatahs, and was following at a
round gallop the steps of one of the Mandara eunuchs, who, I
observed, kept a good look out, his head being constantly turned
over his left shoulder, with a face expressive of the greatest dismay
—when the cries behind, of the Felatah horse pursuing, made us
both quicken our paces. The spur, however, had the effect of
incapacitating my beast altogether, as the arrow, I found afterwards,
had reached the shoulder-bone, and in passing over some rough
ground, he stumbled and fell. Almost before I was on my legs, the
Felatahs were upon me; I had, however, kept hold of the bridle, and
seizing a pistol from the holsters, I presented it at two of these
ferocious savages, who were pressing me with their spears: they
instantly went off; but another who came on me more boldly, just as I
was endeavouring to mount, received the contents somewhere in his
left shoulder, and again I was enabled to place my foot in the stirrup.
Remounted, I again pushed my retreat; I had not, however,
proceeded many hundred yards, when my horse again came down,
with such violence as to throw me against a tree at a considerable
distance; and alarmed at the horses behind him, he quickly got up
and escaped, leaving me on foot and unarmed.
The eunuch and his four followers were here butchered, after a
very slight resistance, and stripped within a few yards of me: their
cries were dreadful; and even now the feelings of that moment are
fresh in my memory: my hopes of life were too faint to deserve the
name. I was almost instantly surrounded, and incapable of making
the least resistance, as I was unarmed—was as speedily stripped,
and whilst attempting first to save my shirt and then my trowsers, I
was thrown on the ground. My pursuers made several thrusts at me
with their spears, that badly wounded my hands in two places, and
slightly my body, just under my ribs on the right side: indeed, I saw
nothing before me but the same cruel death I had seen unmercifully
inflicted on the few who had fallen into the power of those who now
had possession of me; and they were alone prevented from
murdering me, in the first instance, I am persuaded, by the fear of
injuring the value of my clothes, which appeared to them a rich booty
—but it was otherwise ordained.
My shirt was now absolutely torn off my back, and I was left
perfectly naked. When my plunderers began to quarrel for the spoil,
the idea of escape came like lightning across my mind, and without a
moment’s hesitation or reflection I crept under the belly of the horse
nearest me, and started as fast as my legs could carry me for the
thickest part of the wood: two of the Felatahs followed, and I ran on
to the eastward, knowing that our stragglers would be in that
direction, but still almost as much afraid of friends as foes. My
pursuers gained on me, for the prickly underwood not only
obstructed my passage, but tore my flesh miserably; and the delight
with which I saw a mountain-stream gliding along at the bottom of a
deep ravine cannot be imagined. My strength had almost left me,
and I seized the young branches issuing from the stump of a large
tree which overhung the ravine, for the purpose of letting myself
down into the water, as the sides were precipitous, when, under my
hand, as the branch yielded to the weight of my body, a large liffa,
the worst kind of serpent this country produces, rose from its coil, as
if in the very act of striking. I was horror-struck, and deprived for a
moment of all recollection—the branch slipped from my hand, and I
tumbled headlong into the water beneath; this shock, however,
revived me, and with three strokes of my arms I reached the
opposite bank, which, with difficulty, I crawled up; and then, for the
first time, felt myself safe from my pursuers.
Scarcely had I audibly congratulated myself on my escape, when
the forlorn and wretched situation in which I was, without even a rag
to cover me, flashed with all its force upon my imagination. I was
perfectly collected, though fully alive to all the danger to which my
state exposed me, and had already begun to plan my night’s rest, in
the top of one of the tamarind-trees, in order to escape the panthers
which, as I had seen, abounded in these woods, when the idea of
the liffas, almost as numerous, and equally to be dreaded, excited a
shudder of despair.
I now saw horsemen through the trees, still farther to the east,
and determined on reaching them, if possible, whether friends or
enemies; and the feelings of gratitude and joy with which I
recognised Barca Gana and Boo-Khaloom, with about six Arabs,
although they also were pressed closely by a party of the Felatahs,
was beyond description. The guns and pistols of the Arab sheikhs
kept the Felatahs in check, and assisted in some measure the
retreat of the footmen. I hailed them with all my might; but the noise
and confusion which prevailed, from the cries of those who were
falling under the Felatah spears, the cheers of the Arabs rallying and
their enemies pursuing, would have drowned all attempts to make
myself heard, had not Maramy, the sheikh’s negro, seen and known
me at a distance. To this man I was indebted for my second escape;
riding up to me, he assisted me to mount behind him, while the
arrows whistled over our heads, and we then galloped off to the rear
as fast as his wounded horse could carry us: after we had gone a
mile or two, and the pursuit had something cooled, in consequence
of all the baggage having been abandoned to the enemy, Boo-
Khaloom rode up to me, and desired one of the Arabs to cover me
with a bornouse. This was a most welcome relief, for the burning sun
had already begun to blister my neck and back, and gave me the
greatest pain. Shortly after, the effects of the poisoned wound in his
foot caused our excellent friend to breathe his last: Maramy
exclaimed, “Look, look! Boo-Khaloom is dead!” I turned my head,
almost as great an exertion as I was capable of, and saw him drop
from the horse into the arms of his favourite Arab—he never spoke
after. They said he had only swooned; there was no water, however,
to revive him; and about an hour after, when we came to Makkeray,
he was past the reach of restoratives.
About the time Boo-Khaloom dropped, Barca Gana ordered a
slave to bring me a horse, from which he had just dismounted, being
the third that had been wounded under him in the course of the day;
his wound was in the chest. Maramy cried, “Sidi rais! do not mount
him; he will die!” In a moment, for only a moment was given me, I
decided on remaining with Maramy. Two Arabs, panting with fatigue,
then seized the bridle, mounted, and pressed their retreat: in less
than half an hour he fell to rise no more, and both the Arabs were
butchered before they could recover themselves. Had we not now
arrived at the water as we did, I do not think it possible that I could
have supported the thirst by which I was consuming. I tried several
times to speak in reply to Maramy’s directions to hold tight, when we
came to breaks or inequalities in the ground; but it was impossible;
and a painful straining at the stomach and throat was the only effect
produced by the effort.
On coming to the stream, the horses, with blood gushing from
their nostrils, rushed into the shallow water, and, letting myself down
from behind Maramy, I knelt down amongst them, and seemed to
imbibe new life by the copious draughts of the muddy beverage
which I swallowed. Of what followed I have no recollection: Maramy
told me afterwards that I staggered across the stream, which was not

Full Chapter Case Studies in Society Religion and Bioethics Sana Loue PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Chapter Case Studies in Society Religion and Bioethics Sana Loue PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Studies in Society Religion and

Bioethics Sana Loue

Engaging Bioethics An Introduction With Case Studies

Understanding Religious Violence: Radicalism and

The Family Nurse Practitioner: Clinical Case Studies

International Case Studies in Event Management

Case Studies in Building Rehabilitation J.M.P.Q.

Case Studies in Infection Control First Edition Chand

Oxford studies in philosophy of religion (Vol.7) 1st

Auditing: Principles and Practices 1st Edition Ashish

Case Studies in Society,

With Contributions by Madison Carithers

ISBN 978-3-030-44149-4 ISBN 978-3-030-44150-0 (eBook)

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

1 Society, Religion, and Bioethics������������������������������������������������������������ 1

4 Medical Error: Truthtelling, Apology, and Forgiveness�������������������� 73

7 Nazism, Religion, and Human Experimentation�������������������������������� 189

Index to Legal References ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 265

Index to Scriptural References ���������������������������������������������������������������������� 267

Fig. 2.1 Sexual Orientation Laws in the World—2019. By Luis

Table 3.1 Summary of purported potential benefits and harms

Sana Loue is a professor in the Department of Bioethics of Case Western Reserve

Shaafae M. Hussain, MA, is a recent graduate of the Case Western Reserve

She concentrates her practice in workers’ compensation and employment law,

Religion and Bioethics

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

of these individuals, such as Gustafson (1975), premised their analyses in bioethical

He has also asserted that:

American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics. (2013). Conflicts between religious

Kant, I. (1996). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Practical philosophy (trans.

United States Constitution, First Amendment

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

Same-Sex Relations as Sin

Adherents to Judaism and Christianity have frequently looked to specific passages

*With contributions by Madison Carithers.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 13

Unlike Judaism, Christianity draws from the New/Second Testament in addition to

Timothy 1: 8–11 (NRSV) also suggests that sodomy is to be condemned:

In addition, various Hadith, traditions or sayings attributed to the Prophet

Evolving Religious Perspectives

Orthodox Judaism continues to view homosexuality negatively and contrary to

April 25.—The news of the presents I had produced brought early

D. Denham. J. & C. Walker Sculp.

Soon after our arrival, the sultan’s trumpets announced his

The Felatahs seeing their backwardness, now made an attack in

You might also like

1 Society, Religion, and Bioethics�� 1

4 Medical Error: Truthtelling, Apology, and Forgiveness�� 73

7 Nazism, Religion, and Human Experimentation�� 189

Index to Legal References �� 265

Index to Scriptural References �� 267

Religion and Bioethics

Same-Sex Relations as Sin

Evolving Religious Perspectives